The Official ES All Things Redskins Name Change Thread (Reboot Edition---Read New OP)

[Bang]

You've had wittier rebuttals Bang. This one reeks of desperation.

 

Still entertaining none the less.

 

It's actually true, you know.

It's sarcastic, sure, but it's absolutely 100% true.

and yet you brush it off.

Personally, i'm not offended because I really don't care about such things, but what if someone was?

Hell, I sure know our ol' Tailgate pal Honorary Hog would be, and all it takes is one.

 

Philosophical question: What makes it different?

 

~Bang

[CrypticVillain]

Yeah, I don't like being calling black.

 

 

^That is black. My skin color is nowhere near that. I am more of a dark caramel.

[steve09ru]

And I'm not white, more of a perfectly done piece of toast.

[daveakl]

This is not Redskins name specific, but very much related to this topic:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/31/hallmark-sweater-ornament_n_4184233.html

[Commander PK]

I am white...very VERY white.  More than 2 hours in the sun without sunblock, and I am paying dearly for how white I am.  

 

Of course, I punch anyone who points that out because acknowledgement that I am white by anyone but me makes me angry. Clearly...they are trying to offend me.

This is not Redskins name specific, but very much related to this topic:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/31/hallmark-sweater-ornament_n_4184233.html

 

We have all gone mad...

[Duckus]

I could probably live with something like this:

 

http://www.behance.net/gallery/Washington-Redhawks-Brand-Proposal/11458543

 

Yea, I actually really like it. I didn't think Redhawks would work at all - but after looking at it I really liked the use of the classic R with feathers. Very nicely done.

[grego]

Yea, I actually really like it. I didn't think Redhawks would work at all - but after looking at it I really liked the use of the classic R with feathers. Very nicely done.

 

 

it might have flown under the radar, but a few pages back, a poster mentioned "redmen" http://www.redmen.org/

 

"Welcome.

We are a non-profit organization devoted to inspiring a greater love for the United States of America and the principles of American liberty. Along with our women's auxiliary, the Degree of Pocahontas, we support various charitable, youth, and educational programs."

 

best alternative yet, imo. i could live with that.

 

 

 

The fraternity traces its origins back to 1765 and is descended from the Sons of Liberty. These patriots concealed their identities and worked "underground" to help establish freedom and liberty in the early Colonies. They patterned themselves after the great Iroquois Confederacy and its democratic governing body. Their system, with elected representatives to govern tribal councils, had been in existence for several centuries.

After the War of 1812 the name was changed to the Society of Red Men and in 1834 to the Improved Order of Red Men. They kept the customs and terminology of Native Americans as a basic part of the fraternity. Some of the words and terms may sound strange, but they soon become a familiar part of the language for every member. The Improved Order of Red Men (IORM) is similar in many ways to other major fraternal organizations in the United States.

The Improved Order of Red Men is a national fraternal organization that believes in…

• Love of and respect for the American Flag.
• Preserving our Nation by defending and upholding the principle of free Government.
• America and the democratic way of life.
• Preserving the traditions and history of this great Country.
• Creating and inspiring a greater love for the United States of America.
• Helping our fellow men through organized charitable programs.
• Linking our members together in a common bond of Brotherhood and Friendship.
• Perpetuating the beautiful legends and traditions of a once-vanishing race and the keeping alive some of the traditional customs, ceremonies, and philosophies.

[grego]

red′ man` 
n.

usage: This term is rarely used today, except in historical contexts. It is sometimes perceived as insulting to Native Americans.

 

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

 

 

well, guess this wont pass muster either. at least the dictionary says its rarely used. not sure why it doesnt say that about other rarely used definitions of words.

[JMS]

What new information, data, or research has prompted the definition to change over the last several years?  What has surfaced that we did not know about in 1974?

 

 

Perhaps it goes hand in hand with an awakening of public consciousness regarding race as demonstrated by the other things going on in the country around the same time..

 

• 1965 The US Military completed it's 25 year process to integrate itself
• 1968 Martin Luther King was assassinated in Memphis Tn.
• 1968 Civil Rights act
• 1968  Fist Black Player integrates the SEC varsity sports program at Kentucky.
• 1970 Mississippi being the final state to accept and begin desegregation in public school

       (*) The Lawrence County School District in Mississippi was the last school district in the US to integrate in 1970.

• 1970 Halfback James Owens becomes the first black player to play for the University of Alabama
• 1971 The 19 month Indian Occupation of Alcatraz is force able ended by the US Government
• 1972 Indian education act passed by congress
• 1972 Congress passes Equal Employment Opportunity Act
• 1972 Andrew Young is elected to the House of Representatives from Georgia, and Barbara Jordan is elected to the House from Texas; they are the first African-Americans elected to Congress from the South since 1898.
• 1973 First African American Mayor of LA is elected Tom Bradley
• 1973 200 armed protesters form the Oglala Sioux Nation take over Wounded Knee, South Dakota. and succeed from the United States for 71 days.
• 1973 Menominee Restoration Act United States; repealed the 1954 act allowing the US Government to terminate tribal status and ignore treaties.

 

From the 1960's through the mid 1970's the entire country was redefining race relations.   A lot of this was due to the Civil Rights movement of the 1950's and 60's and the subsequent assassination of Martin Luther King.   The entire country began to shift dramatically after that.

[Commander PK]

 

Perhaps it goes hand in hand with an awakening of public consciousness regarding race 

 

and of all those things you posted...what does that have to do with the name of a football team in Washington D.C. where most of the people who are supposed to be offended according to all available data on the topic are not offended?

 

This is not the same thing as integrating the Redskins in 1962.  This is not the same thing as electing an African American Mayor.  This is not the same thing as people uprising because they are treated poorly.  

There is no evidence that the "public consciousness" has changed significantly with the Washington Redskins.  Many of these things are truly apples and oranges.

 

Are the Redskins preventing Native American people from playing on the team?  NO  

Are they actively working to hold Natives back, and prevent them equal rights?  NO  

Do the Redskins actively disparage Native Americans and make fun of them by using their imagery?  NO

 

Now could the Redskins take the initiative to work more directly with Native supporters, and awaken the public to their plight?  

 

ABSOLUTELY

[amm0409]

 

red′ man` 

n.

usage: This term is rarely used today, except in historical contexts. It is sometimes perceived as insulting to Native Americans.

 

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

Oklahoma,

 

"The state's name is derived from the Choctaw words okla and humma, meaning "red people"

[JMS]

and of all those things you posted...what does that have to do with the name of a football team in Washington D.C. where most of the people who are supposed to be offended according to all available data on the topic are not offended?

......

Are the Redskins preventing Native American people from playing on the team?  NO  

Are they actively working to hold Natives back, and prevent them equal rights?  NO  

Do the Redskins actively disparage Native Americans and make fun of them by using their imagery?  NO

 

Your premise is that although we have a racial slur as our name and although our franchise historically used imagery and language which made fun of Native Americans;;  we don't do that any more,  haven't for decades, and so it's all good. 

 

The facts are,  that it's not we who get to decide.   It's the folks who were originally the targets of the derision.    I think it would be hard for even you to interpret the lyrics 

 

 

Scalp 'em, swamp 'um

We will take 'um big score

Read 'um, Weep 'um

 

as not making fun of Native Americans... and you know what.. those lyrics changed in the mid 1980's.

 

Anyway the bar isn't whether we actively make fun of Native Americans.   The bar is whether the name is "disparaging".    It is..   Even if it's not offensive to us, who were never the targets of the derision..  Even if our franchise has done it's best for decades to change the definition and popular use of term,  which I think they have.....  I is a derisive term,  because we here in the Washington DC region who are fanatical Redskins fans don't get to set definitions of terms for the entire country..    Not even if we really really want too.

 

Now about the poll you site...  I don't think that poll is definitive.    It was conducted by a local CBS affiliate, and no scope or poll metadata was associated with it when it was introduced.   We don't know how comprehensive it is.    Typically Native Americans on the east cost tend to be more critical of the Redskins franchise because perhaps they hear more news coverage about the team... while Native Americans in central Midwest, and  western United states being more ambivalent.   Ultimately this poll doesn't matter though I expect both sides will come out with their own definitive and robust polling numbers because that is frankly our only hope for keeping the name Redskins...     Who is better at capturing public imagination,   Dan Snyder or the folks bringing this trademark case.

 

So far it seems it's the opposition.

[Commander PK]

 

 

Your premise is that although we have a racial slur as our name and although our franchise historically used imagery and language which made fun of Native Americans;;  we don't do that any more,  haven't for decades, and so it's all good. 

 

The facts are,  that it's not we who get to decide.   It's the folks who were originally the targets of the derision.    I think it would be hard for even you to interpret the lyrics 

 

 

 

I agree we don't get to decide, but neither does UnWise Mike, Peter King, or Bob Costas.

 

Those things that were deemed offensive or cartoonish about the team were changed.  Our logo is a noble Native American (some say Tammany)  The questionable lyrics about scalping to the fight song were changed as well.

 

For the 100,000,000,000 time...if Native Americans at large decide they want the name changed because it offends them than it should change.  PERIOD.  I have said that from the beginning, but again also for the 100,000,000,000 time there is no evidence that is the case. 

[Predicto]

I

so I guess the dictionary does pose the question. 

 

What new information, data, or research has prompted the definition to change over the last several years?  What has surfaced that we did not know about in 1974?

 

or is Webster's not a reputable enough dictionary?

Changing sensibilities? 

 

Ok...where is the evidence of that?  I know we don't just change definitions over media reports and handful of people's opinions...do we?

 

There are a lot of dictionaries.   Websters publishes multiple versions of its dictionaries, with varying levels of detail.  The one you linked looks to be one of the simpler ones.   I'm not sure that we can reach much of a conclusion from one dictionary in 1974.

[Commander PK]

and I have never acknowledged that the team name is a racial slur.  A racial descriptor yes, but slur implies it disparages and offends.  

 

that has not been proven.

[Predicto]

I have a Random House unabridged dictionary from 1967. The definition is virtually identical to the one noted above but includes the italicized comment "often offensive". Make of it what you will. 

 

And there you go.

[Commander PK]

There are a lot of dictionaries.   Websters publishes multiple versions of its dictionaries, with varying levels of detail.  The one you linked looks to be one of the simpler ones.   I'm not sure that we can reach much of a conclusion from one dictionary in 1974.

 

Of course it is.  The larger point is there is no consensus on the word.  

 

I'm not sure we can reach much of a conclusion from dictionaries at all, that has been my point all along...not in this case.  They are not all the same, even though universally now they are very similar...which again leads me to this  

 

I want to know what tangible evidence exists that shows the name to be offensive and disparaging beyond the modern opinions of some.  Seriously, is this too much to ask?  Cold hard facts?

And there you go.

 

I provided evidence.  

I'm not calling him a liar, but I would like to see that definition.  

[JMS]

and I have never acknowledged that the team name is a racial slur.  A racial descriptor yes, but slur implies it disparages and offends.  

 

that has not been proven.

It has been proven.  It has not been proven to you; but you agree our opinions don't matter.  You can't refute the fact the FTC found the name Redskins to be a racial slur and disparaging a decade ago.  No FTC or judiciary action since has changed that finding.

 

In 1999, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ruled that the name Redskins was disparaging and should be changed.  Since that time the FTC has refused to trademark many companies using the term Redskins... most recently in 2011 when "Redskins Computer Software" was denied a trademark as being disparaging..

 

Again.. Under federal trademark law, what matters is how a term was perceived at the time of registration,   For the NFL's Washington Redskins that mean the early 1960's when the Washington Redskins first trademarked their name.    So potentially all our positive acts over the last 50 years are irreverent to this process.

 

As I understand it the 1999 case was overturned on a technicality by a lower federal court; and that a new case which corrects the technicality was already heard earlier this year.    That subsequent FTC finding is expected any day now.

[Commander PK]

But you agree your and my opinions don't matter and you can't disagree with the fact the FTC already found the name to be a racial slur and disparaging a decade ago;  and no FTC or judiciary action since has changed that finding.

 

In 1999, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ruled that the name Redskins was disparaging and should be changed.

Since that time the FTC has refused to trademark many companies using the term Redskins... most recently in 2011 when "Redskins Computer Software" was denied a trademark as being disparaging..

 

Again.. Under federal trademark law, what matters is how a term was perceived at the time of registration,   For the NFL's Washington Redskins that mean the early 1960's when the Washington Redskins first trademarked their name.

 

You are talking about what the FTC did and is doing...I am saying prove that it's a racial slur.  Just prove it, it should not be this hard.  

 

What evidence did they use to come to that conclusion?  Lots of people have been found guilty in a court of law, that were later proven to be innocent.  New evidence has exonerated inmates facing a death sentence.  

[thebluefood]

I think something that's getting ignored and needs to be at the very forefront of the debate: IF it comes to light that the majority of Native Americans find the name offensive, most, if not virtually all, Redskins fans (myself included) would be the first to say "Yes, let's change it." All this nonsense about the Dictionary is getting us nowhere. It doesn't matter what sports writers or the Dictionaries have to say. The only opinion that really matters in this whole thing is that of Native Americans. 

 

Let me repeat: if it came to light that the majority of Native Americans (not people who claim to be 1/120 or whatever, mind you) found the name offensive, then we would have an obligation to change the name.

[grego]

I think something that's getting ignored and needs to be at the very forefront of the debate: IF it comes to light that the majority of Native Americans find the name offensive, most, if not virtually all, Redskins fans (myself included) would be the first to say "Yes, let's change it." All this nonsense about the Dictionary is getting us nowhere. It doesn't matter what sports writers or the Dictionaries have to say. The only opinion that really matters in this whole thing is that of Native Americans. 

 

Let me repeat: if it came to light that the majority of Native Americans (not people who claim to be 1/120 or whatever, mind you) found the name offensive, then we would have an obligation to change the name.

 

 

you mean the target of the alleged slur ought to have say in determining whether its a slur? 

 

madness.

[Commander PK]

Let's take a look at Wikipedia

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redskin_(slang)

 

 

"Redskin" is a racial descriptor of disputed origin for Native Americans. Although by some accounts not originally having negative intent,^[1] the term is now defined by dictionaries of American English as "usually offensive",^[2] "disparaging",^[3][4]"insulting",^[5] "taboo" ^[6] and is avoided in public usage with the exception of its continued use as a name for sports teams.

The term derives from the use of "red" as a color metaphor for race following European colonization of the Western Hemisphere, although initial explorers and later Anglo-Americans termed Native Americans light-skinned, brown, tawny, or russet. According to historian Alden T. Vaughan, "Not until the middle of the eighteenth century did most Anglo-Americans view Indians as significantly different in color from themselves, and not until the nineteenth century did red become the universally accepted color label for American Indians."^[7] Slang identifiers for ethnic groups based upon physical characteristics, including skin color, are almost universally slurs, or derogatory, emphasizing the difference between the speaker and the target

 

are almost implies there are some that are not.   

[JMS]

You are talking about what the FTC did and is doing...I am saying prove that it's a racial slur.  Just prove it, it should not be this hard.  

 

What evidence did they use to come to that conclusion?  Lots of people have been found guilty in a court of law, that were later proven to be innocent.  New evidence has exonerated inmates facing a death sentence.  

 

Yes because that is where the case is being heard...   The FTC and Federal Court.

 

You said the term Redskin being disparaging and a racial slur had never been proven post #2439 .    I pointed out it had been proven in trial held by the FTC.    A finding which is still in place today....  

 

Now you may want to hear that case over again for your own edification;  because you disagree with it.   However you can't claim the name Redskins has not been proven to be disparaging and a racial slur.   It has been.  The fact is all subsequent court cases have left that finding in place and only dealt with the minutia of the FTC proceedings.     The finding the Redskins is a disparaging term is and has been the policy of the US government for more than a decade.   That's just reality.

[Commander PK]

 

 

 “The term ‘redskin’ was and is a pejorative, derogatory, denigrating, offensive, scandalous, contemptuous, disreputable, disparaging and racist designation for a Native American person.” 

 

If it is all those things...where is the evidence?  And nowhere in all that information on Wiki does it say that the term IS a slur.  Nowhere.

 

[JMS]

If it is all those things...where is the evidence?  And nowhere in all that information on Wiki does it say that the term IS a slur.  Nowhere.

 

So you propose Wikipedia as the final arbitrator of this dispute? 

 

 

 

Redskin (slang)

"Redskin" is a racial descriptor of disputed origin for Native Americans. Although by some accounts not originally having negative intent,^[1]the term is now defined by dictionaries of American English as "usually offensive",^[2] "disparaging",^[3][4] "insulting",^[5] "taboo" ^[6] and is avoided in public usage with the exception of its continued use as a name for sports teams.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redskin_%28slang%29

 

This case was heard by the FTC for weeks in 1999,  with two high priced advocates on each side of the discussion.    We certainly can cite the findings of that court without having to rehash every line of testimony.